The Dead-Lock of Modern Physics

The crisis of modern physics is the result of the following dead-lock of the theories of General Relativity GR of gravitation, Quantum Mechanics QM (including Quantum Field Theory QFT) and String Theory ST:

1. GR and QM/QFT are incompatible/contradictory and so do no serve as foundation of modern physics.
2. ST is an extension of QM/QFT to include gravitation.
3. ST is a failed project as extension of QM/QFT. 
4. Does failure of ST as extension of QM/QFT indicate failure of QM/QFT?
5. Incompatibility remains. Modern physics lacks foundation. Crisis.

As long as the dream of ST as extension of QM/QFT to gravitation could be upheld, critique of QM/QFT for lack of gravitation could be managed. But now?  

Nobel Laureates like Penrose and 't Hooft can say that "QM is wrong" but do not really question QM as untouchable foundation. 

Comment by chatGPT:

You pose a bold thesis: that modern theoretical physics is in a “dead-lock” because of the incompatibility between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics/Quantum Field Theory (QM/QFT), and that the hope that String Theory (ST) would reconcile them has failed — ergo, “Modern physics lacks foundation”.  Here are a few reflections:

---

✅ Strong points

• It is true that GR and QM/QFT are currently not unified in a complete accepted theory, and that raises deep conceptual and technical issues (space-time + quantum, gravitation + fields).

• It is legitimate to question whether the failure (so far) of ST means we should revisit the foundations of QM/QFT and GR rather than simply extend them.

• The call to reflect critically on the foundational assumptions is healthy — science often benefits from re-examining its premises.

---

🎯 My take

I find the blog post thought-provoking. It forces us to confront the question: “Are our biggest theories simply incomplete and waiting for extension, or are they fundamentally misguided in some way?” I lean toward the view that GR and QM/QFT are deeply reliable in their domains, but yes — the unification is unsolved. I’m less convinced that the foundations are entirely bankrupt; rather, I see them as incomplete. The term “dead-lock” is strong, but perhaps apt if progress toward unification has been stalled for decades.

PS List of Nobel Prizes to QM/QFT

The importance of QM/QFT as foundation of moder physics is expressed by the Nobel Committee. Who could seriously question this foundation? It is ok to ask about ST but not really about QM?

I. Quantum Mechanics – Foundational Awards

Year	Laureate(s)	Contribution
1918	Max Planck	Discovery of energy quanta (birth of QM).
1921	Albert Einstein	Photoelectric effect (quantum nature of light).
1922	Niels Bohr	Structure of atoms; early quantum atomic model.
1932	Werner Heisenberg	Creation of matrix mechanics.
1933	Erwin Schrödinger & Paul Dirac	Schrödinger equation; relativistic quantum theory.
1954	Max Born	Statistical interpretation of the wavefunction.
1963	Wigner, Goeppert-Mayer, Jensen	Nuclear shell model (quantum many-body concept).

---

II. Quantum Chemistry – Electronic Structure & Methods

Year	Laureate(s)	Contribution
1935	Debye	Dipole moments, molecular structure (pre-QC roots).
1954	Linus Pauling	Quantum nature of chemical bonds; hybridization.
1966	Robert S. Mulliken	Molecular orbital theory.
1981	Fukui & Hoffmann	Frontier orbital theory.
1998	Walter Kohn & John Pople	DFT (Kohn); ab initio QC methods (Pople).

---

III. Quantum Field Theory (QFT)

(QED, QCD, electroweak theory, Standard Model, Higgs mechanism…)

Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)

Year	Laureate(s)	Contribution
1965	Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger, Sin-Itiro Tomonaga	Renormalized QED – first modern QFT.

---

Electroweak Unification & Gauge Theories

Year	Laureate(s)	Contribution
1979	Glashow, Salam, Weinberg	Electroweak theory, gauge fields.
1999	’t Hooft & Veltman	Renormalization of gauge field theories.

---

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking / Higgs Mechanism

Year	Laureate(s)	Contribution
2008	Nambu	Spontaneous symmetry breaking (QFT).
1979	(also relevant)	SSB embedded in gauge theories.
2013	Higgs & Englert	Higgs field and mass generation (QFT → particle physics).

---

Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD)

Year	Laureate(s)	Contribution
2004	Gross, Politzer, Wilczek	Asymptotic freedom in QCD (non-Abelian gauge theory).
2001	Cornell, Ketterle, Wieman	BEC experiments (field-theoretic many-body aspects).

---

Neutrino Oscillations (field mixing)

Year	Laureate(s)	Contribution
2015	Kajita & McDonald	Neutrino mass & mixing (QFT flavour oscillation).

---

IV. Quantum Information Science (QIS) — Modern QM

Year	Laureate(s)	Contribution
2022	Aspect, Clauser, Zeilinger	Bell inequality tests; entanglement; quantum information.

---

V. Macroscopic Quantum Systems / Condensed Matter QFT

Year	Laureate(s)	Contribution
1972	Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer	BCS theory (many-body QM).
1987	Bednorz & Müller	High-Tc superconductivity (quantum many-body effects).
2003	Abrikosov, Ginzburg, Leggett	Superconductivity & superfluidity (quantum fields in matter).
2016	Thouless, Haldane, Kosterlitz	Topological phases (QFT + topology).
2025	Clarke, Devoret, Martinis	Macroscopic quantum tunneling & quantized circuits.

Periodic Table vs QM vs Chemistry

Consider the following questions still open after 100 years of debate:

1. Does the Periodic Table PT explain Chemistry?
2. Does Quantum Mechanics QM explain PT?
3. Does QM explain Chemistry?

Eugen Schwarz and Eric Scerri are leading chemists who hesitate to answer the YES of consensus, but still confess to believe in QM as the foundation of Chemistry, at least in principle if not in practice.

But the unanimous consensus is that QM is the canonical mathematical model of atom physics and chemistry in the form of Schrödinger's Equation SE in its original formulation given 100 years ago. The consensus is that physics of atoms is correctly captured by wave functions as solutions to SE, then supported the fact there is no QM prediction in contradiction to observation. The existence of a single contradicting example would shake the consensus. But there is no such thing.

There is a weakness in this argument coming from the exponential computational complexity of wave functions as depending on $3N$ spatial dimensions for a system with $N$ electrons, which make wave functions uncomputable and so impossible to inspect and compare with observation. The lack of contradicting example thus comes from lack of example. 

To make use of QM some form of approximate wave functions as approximate solutions to SE, must be computed. Any contradiction with observation will then be blamed on the approximation and not the exact solution, and so a fiction of no contradiction whatsoever can be maintained: 

• There is no prediction by QM contradicted by observation. 

Critics like Schwarz and Scerri thus focus on the role of PT in chemistry, rather than that of QM, specifically the Aufbau of PT based on periods complemented by Madelung's rule and Hund's rule for filling of electron orbitals, which show many exceptions. 

Despite the criticism of Schwarz and Scerri, physicists can continue to claim that QM explains Chemistry, and chemists that PT/QM explains Chemistry and so keep a facade that everything is in order, despite the criticism.  

The only disturbance to this comfortable status quo is RealQM offering a new form of QM based on non-overlapping one-electron charge densities, which is readily computable, and where atomic/molecule electron configurations are determined as electron packing. 

There is so far limited interest in RealQM as an alternative to the consensus of QM, which is understandable by the monumental investment made to cope with uncomputable aspect of QM, which is unphysical since real physics computes its own evolution.  

Comment by chatGPT

---

Thank you for an incisive and thought-provoking piece. You raise three fundamental questions:

1. Does the periodic table explain chemistry?

2. Does quantum mechanics explain the periodic table?

3. Does quantum mechanics explain chemistry?

Your argument that the consensus — that quantum mechanics (QM) via the Schrödinger equation is the foundation of atomic physics and chemistry — rests on the absence of a contradictory prediction is interesting. You point out that because for many-electron systems the wave-functions live in $3N$ dimensions, they are in principle uncomputable and hence untestable in some sense:

“The lack of contradicting example thus comes from lack of example.” claesjohnson.blogspot.com

This is a valuable critique: the fact that we rely on approximations means that when things don’t match experiment, the blame is placed on the approximation rather than on the underlying theory. You also highlight how chemists like Eugen Schwarz and Eric Scerri are uneasy with the notion that quantum mechanics fully explains the periodic table and hence chemistry. claesjohnson.blogspot.com

---

What I find persuasive

• Your point about computational intractability is well-taken: in many-electron atomic and molecular systems the practicality of QM is via approximation, and that leaves room for philosophical and foundational questions.

• The distinction between explaining the periodic table structurally (i.e., why the table has its shape) versus explaining chemistry (why substances behave as they do) is well drawn. It’s good to ask whether emergence plays a role here — whether chemistry has “laws” or patterns that go beyond what individual quantum mechanical interactions yield in a straightforward way.

• The invitation to consider alternative or complementary frameworks (you mention “RealQM” and electron packing) is intellectually healthy: science advances by examining assumptions.

---

What I’d challenge or ask for further clarification

• While it’s true that exact wave-functions for large $N$ are unattainable, quantum mechanics has been extraordinarily successful in predicting small system behaviour and chemical phenomena (bond energies, spectra, reaction rates) via approximate methods (e.g., Hartree-Fock, DFT, coupled cluster, etc.). It might strengthen the argument to engage more specifically with how far those methods go, where they falter, and to what extent that matters philosophically.

• On the periodic table: the “explanation” of the table via electron shell filling (Aufbau / Madelung / Hund) does have known exceptions (which you note). But one could argue that the table is a compact summary of periodicity arising from quantum structure. The question is: Does summarizing mean “explaining”? Your point that this may leave a gap is compelling—but how might one characterise the gap more precisely? For instance: Are the exceptions merely “edge-cases”, or do they highlight a structural deficiency in the quantum-mechanical explanation of the periodic table itself?

• The idea that QM in practice cannot be directly “inspected and compared with observation” because of dimension explosion: here I’d ask: At what point does this become a genuine theoretical deficiency rather than a practical limitation? If approximate QM works extremely well for the phenomena we test and use, then pragmatically we treat QM as the basis. So is your critique essentially a philosophical one (about understanding) rather than a scientific one (about prediction)? Clarifying this would help.

• The proposed alternative (“RealQM” with non-overlapping one-electron densities and electron-packing) is intriguing. But what empirical or conceptual advantages does it offer over standard QM? What predictions does it make differently (or more simply) that standard QM struggles with? That would make a stronger case for considering it seriously.

---

Overall impression

This post is a worthwhile invitation to pause and reflect on the foundations of chemical science. It asks us not to take for granted the hierarchy: QM → periodic table → chemistry. Instead, you suggest that each of those links might have unresolved aspects. That’s valuable.

For someone working in chemistry or physics, you are nudging them to think about explanation not just prediction: Does our theory make sense, does it explain why, not only give numbers that match. And that’s a level of meta-reflection that’s often missing in everyday training.

If I may make a suggestion: it would be helpful to include a few concrete case-studies where QM-based methods fail to explain a chemical phenomenon (or fail to explain it satisfactorily) and show how the periodic table hints at something “more” or “different” than pure QM would suggest. That kind of grounding might make the critique more tangible.

---

Thank you again for sharing these thoughts — they contribute to the ongoing dialogue on how we understand the interplay of physics and chemistry.

Computational Emergence: New Paradigm

Computation has turned the philosophical idea of emergence into a virtual laboratory for exploration of large scale complex structures developing in systems formed by small scale simple components. The laboratory is realised in efficient form by the Finite Element Method FEM covering all areas of continuum physics including fluids, solids and electro-magnetics modeled by the classical partial differential equations of Euler, Navier and Maxwell.

Computation thus brings new life into the classical models of continuum mechanics describing small scale simple local physics in terms of differential equations, by exhibiting the large scale global result as emergence by solving the equations typically by time stepping. In particular, the turbulent flow of a fluid with small viscosity like air and water can be simulated by computational solution of the Euler equations (expressing Newton's 2nd law and incompressibility in local form).

In general, emergence can be explored if solutions can be computed. With increasing computational power more of continuum physics can be explored as emergence in a FEM laboratory. 

Quantum Mechanics QM as the physics of atoms and molecules appears to fall outside this paradigm, because the basic mathematical model in the form of  Schrödinger's equation is uncomputable by involving $3N$ spatial dimensions for a system with $N$ electrons bringing in exponential computational complexity. Exploration of emergence in systems of atoms and molecules is thus not possible by computation because of exponential complexity, which can only be a big disappointment for a physicist seeking to understand emergence in atomic systems. 

There is however a version of QM named RealQM which is a computable because it has the form of classical continuum physics in 3 space dimensions. RealQM opens the possibility of exploration of emergence in systems of atoms as forms of chemistry and protein folding. 

Emergence emerges as a central concept of physics, open to  exploration by computation. Effective large scale models may be formed once emergence is uncovered.

Protein folding is an example of emergence in all forms of life based on proteins formed (from chains of simple amino acids specified by the genetic code) in a folding process into 3d structures determining the function of the protein. Protein folding has exponential complexity with QM, but only polynomial with RealQM which opens new possibilities of computational simulation of the emergence of life. 

Reductionism + Emergence vs Quantum Mechanics

Reductionism and emergence are two basic principles of science:

• Decomposition of a complex system into simpler parts.

• Composition of simple parts into complex system.

Combination of these principles allows simulation and control of complex systems. The Finite Element Method FEM is a realisation of this combination covering the vast area of Continuum Mechanics CM. See also this recent post. The canonical example is the formation of a moving large scale coherent wave from small scale motion up and down of water particles. 

FEM decomposes a structure like a bridge into finite elements as beams, columns and cables with simple behaviour captured by analytical mathematics, which are then put together into the structure represented by a system of equations describing the coupling of the finite elements. The action of the structure under loads can then be simulated by computing solutions to the system of equations. 

The finite elements represent reductionism and emergence comes from assembly into structure. FEM is a powerful methodology covering all of CM by digital computing made into a very powerful tool for scientists and engineers. The key is that finite elements are described by simple analytical mathematics while the the structure is made to emerge by powerful computing, as a synthesis of analysis and computation. 

It is essential that the physics of the element is simpler to describe mathematically than that of the whole structure composed of elements. Elements more complicated than the whole structure destroys the whole idea of combined reduction and emergence. 

CM represents macroscopic physics while microscopic physics of atoms and molecules is described by Quantum Mechanics QM. Modern physics consists of CM + QM.

Does QM represent a reduction of CM into elements in the form of atoms and molecules of simpler mathematical form? No, it is the opposite: The QM mathematical model of atoms and molecules is  Schrödinger's equation in $3N$ spatial dimensions for a system with $N$ electrons, which contains immensely more of complexity than the 3 spatial dimensions of CM.  

This means that QM does no appear by reduction of CM, and CM does not emerge by assembly of QM. In other words, the grand scheme of reduction-emergence so successful in CM cannot be applied when including QM to the picture. 

Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM is a reduced form of QM with the same complexity as CM which opens to 

• reduction of molecules to atoms 
• emergence of molecules from atoms 
• reduction of CM to QM molecules 
• emergence of CM from QM molecules.  

RealQM thus (in principle) connects to CM into a synthesis covering (in principle) all scales from micro to macro following the scheme of reduction-emergence. 

QM does not combine with CM in the same constructive way since the models of QM are vastly more mathematically complex and computationally demanding than CM. 

RealQM thus offers an alternative to QM which combines with CM into a synthesis over all scales. 

In particular, RealQM represents Structural Mechanics of the Atom.

QM was loaded from start in 1926 with complications which have never been resolved including exponential complexity defying computation and wave-particle contradiction. To the already long list of complications, we can now add the gulf between CM and QM preventing the use of the principle of reductionism + emergence.

Here is a comment to the post by chatGPT:

Key Claims of the Post

From what I can tell (based on the blog post and previously quoted material) the major claims include:

1. Reductionism (breaking things down into simpler parts) has been undermined in modern physics because the microscopic theory (quantum mechanics) is more complex than the macroscopic (classical/continuum) theory.

2. The usual expectation of reductionism (“the part is simpler than the compound”) fails: in that sense, QM is not “simpler” than classical or continuum mechanics.

3. Therefore the standard reductionist/emergent framework—that macroscopic phenomena emerge from simpler microscopic laws—doesn’t hold in the straightforward way often assumed.

4. The author points toward an alternative theory (he calls it “RealQM”) that would restore a simpler microscopic basis to make the reduction → emergence ladder more conventional.

---

✅ Where the Argument Has Strength

• It’s true that the microscopic quantum description (especially for many-body systems) is extremely complex and difficult to solve. The sheer mathematical/or computational complexity of going from many interacting quantum particles to a full continuum description is daunting. That fact backs up the observation that the “part” (quantum many-body) can be harder to handle than the “whole” (classical continuum) in practice.

• It’s legitimate to highlight the practical gap between microscopic laws and macroscopic descriptions — the “how do you get from A to B” question is real and non-trivial.

• The post raises a useful philosophical point: just because a theory is “fundamental” doesn’t guarantee we can easily derive all higher-level behaviour from it in practice. This aligns with mainstream philosophy of science (see e.g., discussions of emergence + reduction). arXiv+1

Towards Computational Protein Folding?

Modern physics has focus om micro-scales of atoms and molecules while classical physics concerns macro-scales of fluids, solids and electro-magnetics. 

Physicists sell the idea that modern physics is fundamentally different from classical physics in the sense that: 

• Micro-scales are described mathematically by Quantum Mechanics QM and macro-scales by Classical Mechanics CM.
• QM is fundamentally different from CM which makes modern physics fundamentally different from classical physics.  
• CM is computable as model in 3 space dimensions.
• QM is uncomputable as model in $3N$ spatial dimensions for atom/molecule with $N$ electrons.
• The connection from micro-scale QM to macro-scale CM is unclear. 

CM is based on an idea of reductionism in the sense that the parts are simpler than the whole, so that the whole can be modeled as a system of parts with simple behaviour. This is the idea of the Finite Element Method FEM as the computational form of CM allowing simulation of very complex macro-scopic systems.

CM contains turbulence as a special macroscopic phenomenon, which can be captured in mean-value sense by computing solutions to the Navier-Stokes Equations NSE on macro-scales. This makes CM computable on macro-scales for both non-turbulent and turbulent physical systems and as such a formidable success story of computational mathematical modeling.

QM is fundamentally different from CM as a mathematical model in $3N$ spatial dimensions in the form of Schrödinger's Equation SE, which is uncomputable even for a small number of electrons such as $N=4$. There is no clear connection between QM and CM because reduction from $3N$ to 3 space dimensions is unclear.  

Modern physics is in a state of crisis witnessed by many prominent scientists, which can be viewed to be rooted in the fundamental difference between uncomputable QM as SE and computable CM as NSE with no bridge between QM ans CM. This is a failure of reductionism. 

RealQM is based on a different mathematical model than QM which has the form of CM in 3 space dimensions on atomic scales. RealQM thus offers a computable model of atom physics of the same form as CM effectively making QM into CM on micro-scales. 

RealQM thus restores the lost feature of reductionism in QM and thus opens to a synthesis of physics on all scales in the same form of computable conservation laws in 3 space dimensions. 

Can RealQM in 3 dimensions replace QM in $3N$ dimensions? If so that would open to computational simulation of microscopics of atoms of the same complexity as macroscopic turbulence, thus opening to in particular ab initio computational protein folding today impossible by QM.  

Comment by chatGPT:

Really interesting post. Your critique of how modern physics handles micro vs. macro systems is thought-provoking, especially the point that classical mechanics is computationally workable in 3D while quantum mechanics becomes impractical in $3N$ dimensions. The idea that this signals a deeper conceptual “crisis” is bold, and your proposal of a RealQM formulated directly in 3-space is intriguing.

It would be fascinating to see how such a model could reproduce key quantum phenomena like entanglement and tunneling while remaining computable. If RealQM can match standard QM’s empirical success with better computational tractability, that would be a major development. Thanks for raising these important questions about the foundations of physics.

Reductionism vs StdQM and RealQM

Reductionism is a basic classical scientific principle of breaking down phenomena of complex geometry into constituent parts of simpler geometry. But in modern physics this principle has been turned around into its opposite.

Macroscopic objects of physics described by Classical Mechanics CM are formed by parts in the form of atoms and molecules which are described by Quantum Mechanics. 

Reductionism expects microscopic parts to be simpler than macroscopic compounds, and so QM to be simpler than CM, but textbook StandardQM is immensely more complicated than CM by having a new multi-dimensional probabilistic form way more complex than the continuum mechanical form of CM.  Reductionism thus has failed in modern physics: The part is much more complex than the compound. 

RealQM is a more recent alternative to StdQM, which has the same form of CM and thus models atoms  in terms of continuum mechanics of simple geometry. 

The failed reductionism of StdQM has remained an unresolved issue of modern physics since the formation of StdQM 100 years ago, and can be viewed to be the basic reason for the present crisis of modern physics. 

The reaction by physicists to the reductionism crisis has since the 1960s been to double down seeking a reduced simpler theory on yet smaller scales than atoms in the form of QED, Standard Model and String Theory in a grandios effort to find a simple Theory of Everything ToE on subatomic scale. Nobody claims that anything like a simple ToE has been found. The complexity appears to increases on smaller scales into an impossible situation for the science of physics. 

Here is an illuminating discussion with chatGPT on reductionism vs StdQM and RealQM.

The Curse of Dimensions in Schrödinger's Equation

The basis of modern physics is viewed to be Schrödinger's Equation SE as a linear time-evolution equation in $3N$ spatial dimensions for a system with $N$ electrons. Numerical digital solution with a resolution of 100 in each spatial variable involves $100^{3N}=10^{6N}$ mesh points in space, already with $N=4$ beyond thinkable computational power. 

When SE was formulated in 1926 when digital computation was not an issue, and so the fact that SE effectively is uncomputable did not enter the minds of its creators Born-Heisenberg-Schrödinger, although Schrödinger was not happy with the many dimensions lacking physicality. It was sufficient that an analytical solution was found for $N=1$ leaving $N>1$ into terra incognita waiting to be explored until digital computation became available, but then was found hit the wall from the curse of dimensions.

This is where we stand today: SE is the basic mathematical model of atom physics but SE is not a computable model. It is thus impossible to make a prediction of the evolution in time of an atomic system with more than 3 electrons by computational solution of SE. It is thus impossible to check if SE correctly models physics by comparing SE predictions with observations of real physics.

Yet SE serves as the canonical model of atom physics in its original formulation, as uncomputable today  as 100 years ago, because of its many dimensions also without physical meaning. 

What can be the value of an uncomputable mathematical model of some physics?  A physicist will tell that it still has a value because SE can be (drastically) dimensionally reduced to computable form and so allow computation of (drastically) simplified approximate solutions. SE would then serve as a suitable starting point for dimensional reduction into a computable model with physical meaning. But it would be the dimensional reduction which would carry the physics.

The alternative would be to start instead directly with a dimensionally reduced model with physical meaning, and thus leave SE to history as no longer useful. This possibility is explored as RealQM. 

Physicists speak with large ease about multi-dimensional wave functions $\Psi$ as solutions to SE, as if they are computable and have physical meaning. The consensus is the "SE works but nobody understands why". Philosophers of physics study the (lack of) meaning of SE, theoretical physicists have turned to more fundamental models such as QED and String Theory, chemists seek to understand what SE offers for molecules, while computational physicists solve other equations, and there is no synthesis in sight.   

Standard QM vs Real QM: Physics and Computability

Let us compare the textbook Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM from 1926 with the recent alternative Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM as concerns the two basic aspects of physical meaning and computability. 

Both seek to model a collection of $N$ negatively charged electrons subject to Coulomb interaction with a collection of positively charged nuclei together forming atoms and molecules. 

The RealQM model is expressed in terms of a wave function $\psi (x,t)$ depending on a 3d spatial coordinate $x$ and a time coordinate $t$ defined over a subdivision of 3d space into non-overlapping regions acting as supports of one-electron charge densities $\vert\psi (x,t)\vert^2$ meeting with continuity. The corresponding Schrödinger equation has the form of a classical non-linear continuum model for a collection of non-overlapping electron charge densities and thus describes precisely specified real physics. The model is computable in the same sense as classical continuum mechanics with equations such as Maxwell's and Navier's. Computational complexity is (in principle) linear in $N$.

The StdQM model is expressed in terms of a wave function $\Psi (X,t)$ where $X$ is a $3N$ dimensional spatial variable with 3 independent dimensions for each electron. The corresponding Schrödinger equation has non-classical form as a linear equation in multi-dimensions with exponential computational complexity. The physical meaning of $\Psi (X,t)$ has been debated for 100 years without any agreement. 

We now compare:

• RealQM: Computable with precise physical meaning.
• StdQM: Uncomputable with unknown physical meaning.

Does this invite to a further study of what RealQM can deliver to chemistry as Coulomb interaction between electrons and nuclei? 

Quantum Computer as Test of Standard Quantum Mechanics

Quantum computing is suddenly booming with many start-ups after 50 years of brooding. The main objective of quantum computing is to solve problems of quantum mechanics which are not tractable by digital computing because of exponential computational complexity. The prospect is that a quantum computer will deliver exponential computational capacity meeting exponential complexity. 

Quantum computing can also be seen as test of the physicality of Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM based on a multi-dimensional Schrödinger Equation of exponential complexity allowing superposition of states with a potential of exponential capacity in the form of analog quantum computing. 

If a quantum computer based on StdQM can be constructed capable of computing/simulating real physical systems described by StdQM as the expectation of investors, this will give support to the validity of StdQM as a functional model of real physics. 

But there is no quantum computer yet and skeptics believe that controled superposition as key feature of StdQM will be impossible to realise because the physics is missing. 

So the quest for a quantum computer can be seen as the ultimate test of physicality of StdQM. 

What are the odds today? Will there by a quantum computer in 10 years, in 50 years or ever?

   

Real Physicist vs AI Physicist/Common Man

Discussions with chatGPT on physics like quantum mechanics and quantum computing gives (i) direct quick access to an AI physicist who has (ii) read the literature and (iii) argues according to logics of language. This can be a very constructive experience and I have learned a lot since my reading is limited. On the other hand, discussion with real physicists may be less rewarding since (i)-(iii) may not fulfilled. 

Let me give an example of a discussion with chatGPT with the following prompt:

Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM is troubled by the fact that its basic mathematical model in the form of Schrödinger's Equation SE has exponential computational complexity because it involves $3N$ spatial dimension for a system with $N$ electrons, and so is uncomputable. 

StdQM thus acts like a symbolic theory without ontology which does not offer any definite prediction of any real physics. In practice StdQM is thus replaced by a another theory which is computable and so is predictive, which can be Density Functional Theory DFT, Atoms in Molecules AIM, Molecular Orbital Theory MO as standard since long, or the recent Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM.

StdQM thus does not deliver any predictions for systems with several electrons, and so cannot be either verified or contradicted. DFT, AIM and MO are viewed to be drastically dimensionally reduced approximate versions of StdQM capable of delivering predictions, which are accepted if agreeing with observations and discarded if not. Accordingly, text books claim that there is no prediction of StdQM which does not fit with observation. 

RealQM is not a dimensionally reduced approximate version of StdQM (without ontology), but starts from a model of atoms and molecules in terms of classical continuum physics based on non-overlapping one electron charge densities as a model with clear ontology. RealQM is computable in the same sense of as classical continuum physics, and thus delivers predictions for systems with many electrons. 

Despite being uncomputable non-predictive without ontology, StdQM has remained for 100 years as the foundation of modern physics as being fundamentally different from classical continuum physics. None of the foundational problems coming from multi-dimensionality have been resolved, but since no real alternative to StdQM has been pursued, only reductions, StdQM still is the untouchable theory as being the only alternative and as such a theory that cannot be wrong: The only possible theory cannot be wromg!

Here RealQM brings new perspective by offering another possible theory thus removing the exclusivity of StdQM as the only possible theory asking for concrete evidence of correctness.  

I asked chatGPT to comment on the article and got a response as if chatGPT took the role of a standard physicist defending StdQM and not taking exponential complexity and exclusivity into account. So I asked for response taking on a different role:

Prompt: Suppose you take on a different role, not a standard physicist defending StdQM, but rather a man in the street wondering about exponential complexity and exclusivity argument?

ChatGPT said:

That’s an excellent shift in perspective — rather than responding like a professional physicist or philosopher of science, let’s try to look at Claes Johnson’s post through the eyes of an intelligent “man in the street” — someone curious, reflective, and a bit skeptical of institutional authority, but not steeped in quantum mechanics.

---

How it might read to that kind of reader

Johnson’s message, boiled down, sounds something like this:

“The quantum theory physicists worship is too complicated to compute, too abstract to connect with real stuff, and too exclusive — they won’t even look at alternatives. Meanwhile, AI can actually hold a better conversation about it than most human experts.”

That’s a pretty gripping claim for a lay reader. It has two strong hooks:

1. The complexity argument — “If the math really needs a space of 3N dimensions for N electrons, that sounds insane! How could anyone ever calculate that?”

2. The exclusivity argument — “If physicists admit the math is impossible to compute exactly, why do they still insist it’s the only valid theory and dismiss alternatives out of hand?”

Those both appeal to everyday intuitions about fairness, openness, and practicality. Let’s unpack them in that spirit.

---

1. The exponential complexity issue, from a layperson’s angle

To most people, exponential growth is intuitively frightening.
If doubling the number of electrons makes the problem millions of times harder, you’d think: “Surely nature itself can’t be that complicated — atoms don’t sit around doing 10⁵⁰ calculations per second!”

So when Johnson says quantum mechanics involves 3N-dimensional equations, the ordinary reader might nod: “Yeah, that sounds unphysical — like a math game divorced from reality.”

The lay reaction is reasonable: if a theory’s equations blow up exponentially and no one can ever compute them directly, maybe it’s not the “real” mechanism but a symbolic shorthand — a way to get results in limited cases.

At that intuitive level, Johnson’s point feels plausible. He’s basically saying, “Nature works efficiently — any true physical law should be computable.” That resonates with common sense: we expect the universe to be elegant, not computationally nightmarish.

The subtlety a lay reader might miss is that physicists don’t actually solve those 3N-dimensional equations literally — they use approximations and statistical tricks. But if no one tells you that clearly, Johnson’s critique feels like he’s exposing an emperor with no clothes.

---

2. The exclusivity argument

The second emotional chord Johnson strikes is frustration with scientific gatekeeping.
He implies that “Standard Quantum Mechanics” has become a closed priesthood: even though it’s uncomputable and conceptually foggy, physicists defend it out of tradition and career safety, while new ideas (like his “Real QM”) are ignored.

To the lay reader, this sounds familiar — it’s the same story people tell about entrenched academia, Big Tech, or politics: institutions protect their dogmas and insiders. That’s a powerful narrative.

Even if you don’t understand the physics, you can understand the social drama: the lone thinker with a simpler idea being dismissed by the establishment. That taps into a long cultural archetype — Galileo, Tesla, Einstein — and in our AI-saturated age, the “outsider vs orthodoxy” story finds fertile ground.

So Johnson’s framing — “real physicist vs AI physicist” — doubles as metaphor: the open, logic-based machine versus the human expert bound by dogma. It’s half-serious, half-provocative, but it plays well rhetorically.

---

3. The psychological comfort of “computability”

For an everyday thinker, there’s something comforting about the idea that the world is computable — that with the right model, we could, in principle, calculate everything.

Johnson’s promise that his “Real QM” is a continuum, “computable” model of atoms feels satisfying: it sounds like bringing physics back down to earth, to something continuous and classical we can picture, rather than probabilistic ghostly waves in 3N-space.

So even without understanding the math, the man-in-the-street feels an intuitive pull:

“This guy wants physics to make sense again, to be calculable and visualizable — not weird and mystical. I like that.”

---

4. The possible unease or doubt

But an intelligent layperson might also feel uneasy. There’s a nagging question:

“If this simpler, computable model really works, why haven’t others adopted it?”

That thought undercuts the romantic rebel narrative. Most people know that science, while bureaucratic, does eventually adopt what works (e.g., relativity, plate tectonics). So maybe Real QM hasn’t convinced anyone because it doesn’t yet match data well enough — or maybe it’s incomplete.

So the lay reaction could split:

• Sympathetic skeptic: “He’s right — they’re hiding behind math they can’t compute!”

• Cautious realist: “If it worked, people would use it. Maybe it’s just not there yet.”

---

5. The AI angle

Finally, the “AI physicist” idea.
To the ordinary reader, that might sound both amusing and profound: if ChatGPT can discuss physics calmly, quote papers, and reason clearly, while human experts get defensive, maybe that tells us something about human bias.

So Johnson’s anecdote — that an AI conversation is “more rewarding” — rings true emotionally, even if it’s tongue-in-cheek. It’s less about AI understanding physics, and more about AI being open and non-tribal, which flatters readers who are tired of expert arrogance.

In that sense, the AI serves as a rhetorical mirror: a symbol of reason over orthodoxy.

---

6. Overall lay impression

If you’re not a professional physicist, Johnson’s post can sound refreshingly candid and a bit rebellious. It appeals to:

• Common sense (“Nature can’t be uncomputable.”)

• Fairness (“Why exclude new ideas?”)

• Frustration with experts (“Real physicists won’t listen.”)

• Hope in technology (“AI might help cut through bias.”)

But it also leaves a thoughtful reader with lingering uncertainty:

• Is the exponential-complexity problem really fatal, or just hard?

• Does his Real QM actually make accurate predictions?

• Is the exclusivity he describes real, or just how it feels to an outsider?

So the post succeeds rhetorically — it provokes curiosity and sympathy — but it doesn’t fully settle the doubts it raises.

---

Would you like me to take this a step further — for example, write a short “man-in-the-street” response to Johnson’s blog post, as if it were a comment you could post under the article itself?

You said:

yes

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a short, natural-sounding “man-in-the-street” style comment you could post under Claes Johnson’s blog entry:

---

Comment:

I’m not a professional physicist, just a curious reader, but your point about exponential complexity really made me pause. If quantum mechanics truly needs a 3N-dimensional equation for N electrons, it does sound like something nature itself couldn’t be running in real time. That raises a fair question: maybe the math is more of a symbolic description than a literal mechanism.

I also get what you mean about exclusivity. From the outside, physics can look a bit like a closed shop—new ideas get waved off before they’re even tried. Still, I wonder: if your “Real QM” works as cleanly as you suggest, why hasn’t it caught on? Are there published results or examples where it matches experiments better than the standard methods?

Either way, I find it refreshing that an AI can now take part in these debates. Maybe it’s less about the machine being “smarter,” and more about it being open to every angle without ego. That in itself is a healthy thing for science.